Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Practitioners’ experiences with model-driven engineering: a meta-review

  • Special Section Paper
  • Published:
Software and Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Object Management Group introduced the Model-Driven Architecture in 2001. Since then, the research community has embraced model-driven engineering (MDE), but to a lesser extent than practitioners had hoped. A good awareness of practitioners’ challenges, particularly with modeling, is required to ensure the relevance of a research agenda. Therefore, this study conducts a meta-review on the state of practice in using modeling languages for software engineering over the last five years using Kitchenham’s guidelines. This study serves as an orientation within the research field and a basis for further research. It contributes to the literature by focusing on publications discussing the practical use of modeling languages and the benefits and problems perceived by practitioners. The main finding of this review is that practitioners benefit from MDE in the following ways: it is beneficial for several stakeholders; it saves cost; it is easy to use; it improves productivity, quality, and understanding of the system; and it provides support for software development activities. However, practitioners continue to face several serious challenges. The most frequently reported issues are the missing tool functionalities. Many studies have found that adhering to the Physics of Notation principles would improve modeling languages. Other findings include that modeling is mostly used for documentation and requirements elicitation, and UML is the most often used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The data can be accessed on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6727785

  2. It should be noted that the search engines of Web of Science and Scopus automatically apply lemmatization rules to search queries, see https://images-webofknowledge-com.webvpn.bjtu.edu.cn/data/images/help/WOK/hs_title.html and https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15137/supporthub/scopus/. Hence, both "modelling" and "modeling" will be searched for.

References

  1. Soley, R.: Model driven architecture model driven architecture preface: OMG’s accomplishments. 308 (2000)

  2. van der Linden, D., Hadar, I., Zamansky, A.: What practitioners really want: requirements for visual notations in conceptual modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(3), 1813–1831 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-018-0667-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Badreddin, O., Khandoker, R., Forward, A., Masmali, O., Lethbridge, T.C.: A decade of software design and modeling: a survey to uncover trends of the practice. In: Proceedings—21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2018, pp. 245–256 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3239372.3239389

  4. Ho-Quang, T., Hebig, R., Robles, G., Chaudron, M.R.V., Fernandez, M.A.: Practices and perceptions of UML use in open source projects. In: Proceedings—2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track, ICSE-SEIP 2017, pp. 203–212 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEIP.2017.28

  5. Group, S.: Chaos Reports. https://www.standishgroup.com/chaosReport/index. Accessed 17 Jan 2021

  6. Jackson, D.: The Essence of Software: Why Concepts Matter for Great Design. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2021)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Verbruggen, C., Snoeck, M.: Model-Driven Engineering: A State of Affairs and Research Agenda, vol. 421 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79186-5_22

  8. Grossman, M., Aronson, J.E., McCarthy, R.V.: Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(6), 383–397 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2004.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: Dimensions of UML diagram use: a survey of practitioners. J. Database Manag. 19(1), 1–18 (2008). https://doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2008010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nugroho, A., Chaudron, M.R.V.: A survey into the rigor of UML use and its perceived impact on quality and productivity. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 90–99 (2008). Accessed 17 Sep 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3247190

  12. Petre, M.: ‘No shit’ or ‘Oh, shit!’: responses to observations on the use of UML in professional practice. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(4), 1225–1235 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0430-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fettke, P.: How conceptual modeling is used. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25, 571–592 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Malavolta, I., Lago, P., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., Tang, A.: What industry needs from architectural languages: a survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(6), 869–891 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Burden, H., Heldal, R.: A taxonomy of tool-related issues affecting the adoption of model-driven engineering. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(2), 313–331 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10270-015-0487-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Selic, B.: The theory and practice of modeling language design for model-based software engineering: a personal perspective. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 6491, pp. 222–289 (2011)

  17. Selic, B.: What will it take? A view on adoption of model-based methods in practice. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(4), 513–526 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10270-012-0261-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zheng, Y., Taylor, R.N.: A classification and rationalization of model-based software development. Softw. Syst. Model. 12(4), 669–678 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10270-013-0355-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Giraldo, F.D., España, S., Giraldo, W.J., Pastor, O.: Modelling language quality evaluation in model-driven information systems engineering: a roadmap. In: International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 64–69 (2015)

  20. Dermeval, D., et al.: Applications of ontologies in requirements engineering: a systematic review of the literature. Requir. Eng. 21(4), 405–437 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-015-0222-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bucchiarone, A., Cabot, J., Paige, R.F., Pierantonio, A.: Grand challenges in model-driven engineering: an analysis of the state of the research. Softw. Syst. Model. 19(1), 5–13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10270-019-00773-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wortmann, A., Barais, O., Combemale, B., Wimmer, M.: Modeling languages in Industry 4.0: an extended systematic mapping study. Softw. Syst. Model. 19(1), 67–94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10270-019-00757-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moody, D.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kitchenham, S., Charters, B.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE, vol. EBSE-2007, no. School of Computer Science and Mathematics, p. 65 (2007). https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf

  25. Baltes, S., Diehl, S.: Sketches and diagrams in practice. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, vol. 16, pp. 530–541 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2635868.2635891

  26. Ozkaya, M., Erata, F.: A survey on the practical use of UML for different software architecture viewpoints. Inf. Softw. Technol. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Badreddin, O., Rahad, K., Forward, A., Lethbridge, T.: The evolution of software design practices over a decade: a long term study of practitioners. J. Obj. Technol. 20(2), 1:1-1:19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2021.20.2.a1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Routis, I., Bardaki, C., Dede, G., Nikolaidou, M., Kamalakis, T., Anagnostopoulos, D.: CMMN evaluation: the modelers’ perceptions of the main notation elements. Softw. Syst. Model. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00880-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Albaghajati, A., Hassine, J.: A use case driven approach to game modeling. Requir. Eng. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-021-00362-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ozkaya, M.: Are the UML modelling tools powerful enough for practitioners? A literature review. IET Softw. 13(5), 338–354 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2018.5409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Awadid, A., Nurcan, S., Ayachi Ghannouchi, S.: On leveraging the fruits of research efforts in the arena of business process modeling formalisms: a map-driven approach for decision making. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(3), 1905–1930 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-018-0689-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ozkaya, M.: The analysis of architectural languages for the needs of practitioners. Softw. Pract. Exp. 48(5), 985–1018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ozkaya, M.: Do the informal & formal software modeling notations satisfy practitioners for software architecture modeling? Inf. Softw. Technol. 95, 15–33 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Liebel, G., Marko, N., Tichy, M., Leitner, A., Hansson, J.: Model-based engineering in the embedded systems domain: an industrial survey on the state-of-practice. Softw. Syst. Model. 17(1), 91–113 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0523-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ozkaya, M.: What is software architecture to practitioners: a survey. In: MODELSWARD 2016—Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, pp. 677–686 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5220/0005826006770686

  36. Saleh, F., El-Attar, M.: A scientific evaluation of the misuse case diagrams visual syntax. Inf. Softw. Technol. 66, 73–96 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kocbek, M., Jošt, G., Heričko, M., Polančič, G.: Business process model and notation: the current state of affairs. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 12(2), 509–539 (2015). https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS140610006K

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Huldt, T., Stenius, I.: State-of-practice survey of model-based systems engineering. Syst. Eng. 22(2), 134–145 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Akdur, D., Garousi, V., Demirörs, O.: A survey on modeling and model-driven engineering practices in the embedded software industry. J. Syst. Architect. 91, 62–82 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2018.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Farias, K., Gonçales, L., Bischoff, V., da Silval, B., Guimarães, E., Nogle, J.: On the UML use in the brazilian industry: a state of the practice survey. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, SEKE, vol. 2018-July, pp. 372–375 (2018). https://doi.org/10.18293/SEKE2018-183

  41. Störrle, H.: How are conceptual models used in industrial software development? A descriptive survey. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. Part F128635, pp. 160–169 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084256

  42. Fernández-Sáez, A.M., Caivano, D., Genero, M., Chaudron, M.R.V.: On the use of UML documentation in software maintenance: results from a survey in industry. In: MODELS, pp. 292–301 (2015)

  43. Monsalve, C., April, A., Abran, A.: Business process modeling with levels of abstraction (2015)

  44. Rozanski, N., Woods, E.: Software systems architecture. https://www.viewpoints-and-perspectives.info/home/viewpoints/. Accessed 16 Mar 2021

  45. Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pohl, K.: The Requirements Engineering Framework. Springer, Berlin (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12578-2_4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Pohl, K.: The three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications. Inf. Syst. 19(3), 243–258 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4379(94)90044-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Härer, F., Fill, H.-G.: Past trends and future prospects in conceptual modeling: a bibliometric analysis. In: Conceptual Modeling, pp. 34–47 (2020)

  49. Lago, P., Malavolta, I., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., Tang, A.: The road ahead for architectural languages. IEEE Softw. 32(1), 98–105 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Naranjo, D., Sánchez, M., Villalobos, J.: Evaluating the capabilities of enterprise architecture modeling tools for visual analysis. J. Obj. Technol. 14(1), 3:1-3:32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2015.14.1.a3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pourali, P., Atlee, J.M.: An empirical investigation to understand the difficulties and challenges of software modellers when using modelling tools. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 224–234 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3239372.3239400

  52. Pourali, P., Atlee, J.M.: UCAnDoModels: a context-based model editor for editing and debugging UML class and state-machine diagrams. In: 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C), pp. 779–783 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/MODELS-C.2019.00122

  53. Pourali, P., Atlee, J.M.: A focus+context approach to alleviate cognitive challenges of editing and debugging UML models. In: 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 183–193 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/MODELS.2019.000-3

  54. Liaskos, S., Mylopoulos, J., Khan, S.M.: Empirically evaluating the semantic qualities of language vocabularies. In: Conceptual Modeling, pp. 330–344 (2021)

  55. Bork, D., Roelens, B.: A technique for evaluating and improving the semantic transparency of modeling language notations. Softw. Syst. Model. 20(4), 939–963 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00895-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ruiz, J., Asensio, E.S., Snoeck, M.: Learning UI functional design principles through simulation with feedback. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 13(4), 833–846 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.3028596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Poelmans, S.: Assessing the effectiveness of feedback enabled simulation in teaching conceptual modeling. Comput. Educ. 78, 367–382 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bogdanova, D., Snoeck, M.: Learning from errors: error-based exercises in domain modelling pedagogy. In: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pp. 321–334 (2018)

  59. Bogdanova, D., Snoeck, M.: CaMeLOT: an educational framework for conceptual data modelling. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center for Information Systems Engineering, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Charlotte Verbruggen & Monique Snoeck

Authors
  1. Charlotte Verbruggen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monique Snoeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Verbruggen.

Additional information

Communicated by Iris Reinhartz-Berger, Jelena Zdravkovic, and Asif Gill.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verbruggen, C., Snoeck, M. Practitioners’ experiences with model-driven engineering: a meta-review. Softw Syst Model 22, 111–129 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-022-01020-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-022-01020-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation